ION vs. BATT

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both Lithium & Battery Metals funds. ION is passively managed, while BATT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ION returned 10.56%/yr vs 5.35%/yr for BATT. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BATT.

Performance

ION vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ION achieves a -7.89% return, which is significantly lower than BATT's 4.71% return.

ION

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -6.94%
• 6M: -16.92%
• YTD: -7.89%
• 1Y: 56.30%
• 3Y*: 10.56%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.26%

BATT

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: -4.49%
• 6M: -4.11%
• YTD: 4.71%
• 1Y: 50.64%
• 3Y*: 5.35%
• 5Y*: -2.30%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.84%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	$636.05K	$767.46K	$1.35M
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	$65.12K	$82.86K	$247.96K

ION vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	-7.89%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	4.71%	59.70%	-13.93%	-7.05%	-11.89%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and BATT is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.83

The correlation between ION and BATT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

ION vs. BATT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	BATT
Financial Services	13.1%	0.2%
Basic Materials	12.8%	57.4%
Healthcare	5.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	20.6%
Real Estate	2.7%	-
Energy	2.6%	-
Industrials	1.9%	17.7%
Communication Services	-	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Technology	-	3.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ION vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 49
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 51
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 41

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 58
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 56
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 52

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ION vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ION	BATT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	1.51	-0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	1.99	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.26	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	2.21	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.55	6.21	-1.66

ION vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 1.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION and BATT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ION vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, smaller than the maximum BATT drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and BATT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	BATT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-69.38%	+17.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.66%	-23.02%	-10.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.44%	-45.26%	+2.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.52%	-19.86%	-10.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.76%	-34.39%	+10.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.41%	8.18%	+4.23%

Volatility

ION vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) is 9.50%, while Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) has a volatility of 10.05%. This indicates that ION experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BATT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ION	BATT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.50%	10.05%	-0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.40%	27.20%	+2.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.56%	33.68%	+5.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.56%	30.01%	+1.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.56%	30.78%	+0.78%

ION vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than BATT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, less than BATT's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.77%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.61%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ION and BATT in my portfolio?

ION and BATT have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ION or BATT?

BATT has higher volatility (10.05%) compared to ION (9.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs BATT's -69.38%.

Which ETF is better, ION or BATT?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 10.56% vs 5.35% for BATT. On fees, ION is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, ION has been the lower-risk option at 9.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or BATT?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 10.56% return vs 5.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or BATT?

ION is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BATT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ION or BATT?

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.61% for ION.

What is the main difference between ION and BATT?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.59% for BATT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.51 vs 1.43), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.